Events in the Balkans and in Persia

Published:ProletaryNo. 37, October 16 (29), 1908.

      Published according to the text inProletaryverified with the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1973,

      Moscow,Volume 15,

      pages220-230.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Thepolitical press in Russia and throughout Europe is preoccupied lately with
the events in the Balkans. For a time a European war seemed dangerously close,
and that danger has by no means been eliminated, though it is much more probable
that the whole thing will end up in shouting and clamour and war will be
avoided.

Letus take a glance at the nature of the crisis and the tasks it imposes on the
workers’ party in Russia.

Apowerful impetus to the political awakening of the Asian peoples was given by
the Russo-Japanese War and the Russian revolution. But this awakening spread so
slowly from one country to another that in Persia Russian counter revolution
played and continues to play what amounts to a decisive role, while in Turkey
the revolution was at once confronted with a counter-revolutionary coalition of
the powers, Russia at their head. True, the general tone of the European press
and of the diplomatic statements would appear to contradict this. If we are to
believe these statements and the semi-official press, there is universal
“sympathy” with regenerated Turkey, a universal desire to see her
constitutional regime strengthened and developed, general praise for the
“moderation” of the bourgeois Young Turks.

Allthese fine words, however, are typical of the base bourgeois hypocrisy of
Europe’s ’present-day’ reactionary governments and present-day reactionary
bourgeoisie. For the fact is that not a single European country calling itself a
democracy, and not a single European bourgeois party professing to be
democratic, progressive, Liberal, Radical, etc., has in any way demonstrated a
genuine desire to promotethe victory and consolidation of the Turkish revolution. On the contrary, they
allfearits success, for the inevitable result of it would be, on the
one hand, to foster the desire for autonomy and genuine democracy in all the
Balkan nations and, on the other, ensure the victory of the Persian revolution,
give fresh impetus to the democratic movement in Asia, intensify the struggle
for independence in India, create free institutions along an immense stretch of
Russia’s frontier—and, consequently, new conditions that would
hamper the policy of Black-Hundred tsarism and facilitate
 the rise of the revolution in Russia, etc.

Essentially,what we see now going on in the Balkans, Turkey and Persia is a
counter-revolutionary coalition of the European powersagainstthe
mounting tide of democracy in Asia. All the efforts of our governments, all the
preaching of the “big” European papers, are aimed at glossing over
this fact, misleading public opinion, covering up with hypocritical speeches and
diplomatic hocus-pocus thecounter revolutionary coalitionof the
so-called civilised nations of Europe against the nations of Asia, least
civilised but most energetic in their striving for democracy. And the very
essence of proletarian policy at this stage should be to tear the mask
from. these bourgeois hypocrites and to reveal to the broadest masses of the
people the reactionary character of the European governments who, out of fear of
the proletarian struggle at home, are playing, and helping others play, the
part of gendarme in relation to the revolution in Asia.

Europehas woven a dense web of intrigue around all the Turkish and Balkan
events, and the man in the street is being hoodwinked by the diplomats, who try
to divert public attention to trifles, secondary issues, individual aspects of
present developments, in an effort to obscure the meaning of the process as a
whole. In contrast to this, our task, the task of international
Social-Democracy, should be to show the people how these developments are
interconnected, to bring out their fundamental trend and underlying motives.

Rivalryamong the capitalist powers, anxious to “bite off” as big a
piece as they can and extend their possessions and colonies, coupled with fear
of an independent democratic movement among the nations dependent on or
“protected”by Europe—these are two mainsprings of all European policy. The Young
Turks are praised for their moderation and restraint, i.e., the Turkish
revolution is being praised because it is weak, because it is not rousing the
popular masses to really independent action, because it is hostile to the
proletarian struggle beginning in the Ottoman Empire—and at the same time
the plunder of Turkey continues. The Young Turks are praised for making it
possible to go on plundering Turkish possessions. They praise the Young Turks
and continue a policy, the obvious purpose of which isto partition
Turkey. In this connection the Social-DemocraticLeipziger
Volkszeitungmade this very true and apt comment:

“InMay 1791, far-sighted statesmen who were really concerned for
   the well-being of their country carried out a political reform in
   Poland. The King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria praised the
   Constitution of May 3, saying it would ’bring prosperity to a neighbouring
   country’. The whole world extolled the Polish reformers for practising
   ’moderation’, unlike the terrible Jacobins of Paris.... On January 23,
   1793, Prussia, Austria and Russia signed a treaty partitioning Poland!“InAugust 1908, the Young Turks carried out their political
   reform with uncommon smoothness. The whole world praised them for
   practising such respectable ’moderation’, unlike the terrible socialists of
   Russia.... Now, in October 1908, we are witnessing a series of developments
   that presage the partition of Turkey.”

“InMay 1791, far-sighted statesmen who were really concerned for
   the well-being of their country carried out a political reform in
   Poland. The King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria praised the
   Constitution of May 3, saying it would ’bring prosperity to a neighbouring
   country’. The whole world extolled the Polish reformers for practising
   ’moderation’, unlike the terrible Jacobins of Paris.... On January 23,
   1793, Prussia, Austria and Russia signed a treaty partitioning Poland!

“InAugust 1908, the Young Turks carried out their political
   reform with uncommon smoothness. The whole world praised them for
   practising such respectable ’moderation’, unlike the terrible socialists of
   Russia.... Now, in October 1908, we are witnessing a series of developments
   that presage the partition of Turkey.”

Indeed,it would be childish to believe thewordsof the diplomats and
disregard theirdeeds, the collective action of the powers against
revolutionary Turkey. The veryfactthat the present developments were
preceded by meetings and conversations of the Foreign Ministers and I-leads of
State of several countries, is enough to dispel this naive faith in diplomatic
statements. In August and September, immediately after the Young Turk revolution
and just before the Austrian and Bulgarian declarations, Mr. Izvolsky met King
Edward and Premier Clemenceau of the French Republic in Karlsbad and Marienbad;
the Austrian and Italian Foreign Ministers, von Aehrenthal and Tittoni, met in
Salzburg; then came the meetings between Izvolsky and Aehrenthal in Buchloe on
September 15; between Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria and Emperor Franz-Joseph in
Budapest; Izvolsky’s meeting with von Schoen, the GermanForeign Minister, and later with Tittoni and the King of Italy.

Thesefacts speak for themselves.All the importantpoints had been
agreed uponbeforethe Austrian and Bulgarian action secretly and
directly, at personal meetings of kings and ministers,betweenthesixpowers: Russia, Austria, Germany, Italy, France and Britain. Thesubsequentcontroversy in the press as to whether Aehrenthal was
speaking the truth when he stated that Italy, Germany and Russia had agreed to
Austria’s annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina wasa farce from
beginning to end, a sheer deception, that can fool only liberal
philistines. The foreign policy directors of the European powers—the
Izvolskys, Aehrenthals and the whole gang of crowned robbers and their ministers—purposely threw this bone to the press: go on bickering,
gentlemen, over who cheated whom and who affront ed whom, whether Austria cheated
Russia, or Bulgaria cheated Austria, etc., over who was the “first”
to begin tearing up the Berlin

Treaty,[1]over the different
attitudes to the proposed conference of the powers, and so on and so
forth. Please keep public attention preoccupied with these interesting and
important—oh, very important!—questions. That is exactly what we
need in order to concealwhat really. matters, namely, that we have
already come to a preliminary agreement on the main thing, i.e., action against
the Young Turk revolution, further steps to partition Turkey, revision of the
Dardanelles arrangement on one pretext or another, permission for
Russia’s Black-Hundred tsar to strangle the Persian revolution. That is
the crux of the matter; that is what we, the leaders of the reactionary
bourgeoisie of all Europe, really need, and that is what we are doing. As for
the liberal simpletons in the press and in parliament, they can spend their time
debating how it all began, who said what, and in what guise the policy of
colonial plunder and suppression of democratic movements is to be finally
signed, sealed and presented to the world.

Ineach of the European Great Powers—with the exception of Austria, which
for the time being is “satiated”— the liberal press is accusingitsgovernment of inadequate defence ofitsnational
interests. Everywhere the liberals present their country and their government as
the most maladroitin “utilising” the situation, as having been fooled, etc. And
that precisely is the policy of our Cadets too. They have long been saying that
Austria’s successes make them “envious” (Mr. Milyukov’s
own words). This policy of the liberal bourgeoisie in general, and that of our
Cadets in particular, is the most revolting hypocrisy, the vilest betrayal of
the genuine interests of progress and freedom. For it is a policy which, first,
befuddles the democratic consciousness of the masses by hushing up the
conspiracy of the reactionary governments. Secondly, it impels every country to
follow a so-called active foreign policy, i.e., it sanctions the system of
colonial robbery and interference by the powers in Balkan affairs, interference
which is always reactionary. Thirdly, it plays directly into the hands of re
action, interesting the people in how much “we” will receive, how
much “we” will get out of the booty, how much “we” can
bargain for “ourselves”. What the reactionary governments need
most, at this juncture, is precisely the opportunity to plead that
“public opinion” supports their territorial seizures, demands for
“compensation”, etc. Look, they say, the press of my country accuses
me of excessive generosity, of inadequate defence of the national interests, of
being too pliable, and it threatens war. Consequently, my demands are most
“modest and fair”, and must therefore he met in full!

Thepolicy of the Russian Cadets, like that of the European liberal
bourgeoisie, is one of subservience to the reactionary governments, defence of
colonial aggrandisement and plunder, and interference in the affairs of other
countries. The Cadet policy is especially harmful because it is being conducted
under the “opposition” flag, and therefore misleads very many, wins
the confidence of those who have no faith in the Russian Government and corrupts
the masses. Therefore, our Duma deputies and all our Party organisations must
bear in mind that we cannot make a single serious step forward in
Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation about the Balkan events without
revealing—fromthe Duma rostrum, in leaflets and at
meetings—theconnectionbetween the reactionary policy of the
autocracy and the hypocritical opposition of the Cadets. We shall never be able
to explain to the people how harmful and reactionary the policy of thetsarist government is, unless we explain that Cadet foreign policy isessentially the same. We cannot combat chauvinism and the Black-Hundred
spirit in foreign policy, unless we combat the phrase-mongering, the posing, the
mental reservations and dodges of the Cadets.

Whereconcessions to the liberal-bourgeois point of view lead socialists will be
seen from the following example. In the well-known opportunist journalSozialistische Monatshefte(Socialist—???—Monthly), Max
Schippel has this to say on the Balkan crisis: “Nearly all thinking party
members would consider it a mistake if the view which was recently expressed once
more in our Berlin Central Organ[Vorwärts]prevailed, the view that
Germany has nothing to look for in either the present or future revolutions in
the Balkans. Certainly, we should not strive for territorial
acquisitions.... But there can be no doubt that the major realignments of the
powers in this area, which is an important connecting link between Europe, the
whole of Asia and part of Africa, have a direct bearing on our international
position.... For the time being the reactionary Russian colossus is of no
decisive importance.... We have no reason to see in Russia an enemy always and
everywhere, as she was regarded by the democrats of the fifties”
(5. 1319).

Thissilly liberal, parading as a socialist, has failed, to notice
Russia’s reactionary intrigues behind her “solicitude” for
the “Slav brothers”! By using the words “we” (meaning the
German bourgeoisie), “our” position, etc., he has failed to notice
either the blow dealt the Young Turk revolution, or Russia’s action
against the Persian revolution!

Schippel’sstatement appeared in the October. 22 issue of the journal. On
October 18 (5),Novoye

Vremya[2]published a vitriolic article alleging
that the “anarchy in Tabriz has reached incredible dimensions” and
the city has been “half destroyed and sacked by semi-savage
revolutionaries”. In other words, the victory of the revolution over the
Shah’s troops in Tabriz has immediately aroused the fury of the
semi-official Russian journal. It describes Sattar Khan, leader of the Persian
revolutionary forces, as the

“Pugachov[3]of Aderbaijan”
(Aderbaijan, or Azerbaijan, is the northern province - of Persia and, according
to Reclus, accounts for nearly one-fifth of the total population; Tabriz isthe capital of the province). “One is entitled to ask,”Novoye
Vremyawrote, “whether Russia can endlessly tolerate these outrages,
which are ruining our lucrative trade on the Persian frontier.... It should be
borne in mind that all Eastern Transcaucasia and Aderbaijan are an ethnological
whole.... Tatar semi-intellectuals in Transcaucasia, forgetting that they are
Russian subjects, have displayed warm sympathy for the disturbances in Tabriz
and are sending volunteers to thatcity... What is much more important for us is
that Aderbaijan, which borders on Russia, should he pacified. Deplorable
though it may be, circumstances might compel Russia, despite her strong desire
not to interfere, to take this task upon herself.”

OnOctober 20, the GermanFrankfurter Zeitungcarried a dispatch from
St. Petersburg that Russian occupation of Aderbaijan is contemplated by way of
“compensation”. On October 24 (11), the same paper published a
telegram from Tabriz:

“Two days ago six battalions of Russian
infantry, supported by cavalry and artillery, crossed the Persian frontier and
are today expected in Tabriz.”

TheRussian troops were crossing the Persian frontier on the very day when Max
Schippel, slavishly repeating the assurances and theoutcriesof the
liberal, and police press, was telling the German workers that Russia’s
importance as a reactionary colossus was now a thing of the past, and that to
regard Russia as an enemy under all circumstances would be a mistake!

Thereis to be a new massacre of Persian revolutionaries by the troops of
Nicholas the Bloody. The unofficial Lyakhov is being followed by the official
occupation of Aderbaijan, and the repetition in Asia of what Russia did in
Europe in 1849, when Nicholas I sent his troops against the Hungarian
revolution. At that time there were genuine democrats among the bourgeois
parties of Europe, who were capable of fighting for freedom, and not only
hypocritically talking about freedom, as all the bourgeois democrats do in our
day. Russia had then to play the part of European gendarme against at any rate a
few European countries. Todayallthe biggest European powers, not
excluding the “democratic” republic of the “red”
Clemenceau, mortally afraid as they are of any extension of democracy at home
because it wouldbenefit the proletariat, arehelpingRussia play the gendarme in Asia.

Therecannot be the slightest doubt that “freedom of action” for
Russia against the Persian revolution waspart of the September reactionary
conspiracyof Russia, Austria, Germany, Italy, France and Britain. Whether
this was explicitly stated in some secret document (which may be published
many years hence in a collection of historical materials) or whether it was
only intimated by Izvolsky to his most obliging fellow-negotiators, or whether
the latter “hinted” that they intended to pass from
“occupation” to “annexation”, and that the Russians
would perhaps like to pass from the Lyakhov policy to “occupation”,
or whether some other arrangement was made—all that is not of the least
importance. What is important is that, however in formal, the September
counter-revolutionary conspiracy of the powersis a fact, the
significance of which becomes increasingly clear with every passing day. It is
a conspiracy against the proletariat and democracy. It is a conspiracy for
directly suppressing the revolution in Asia, or at least for dealing it indirect
blows. It is a conspiracy for the continuation of colonial plunder and
territorial conquest in the Balkans today, in Persia tomorrow, maybe in Asia
Minor and Egypt the day after, etc., etc.

Onlythe world proletarian revolution can overthrow this combined power of the
crowned bandits and international capital. The urgent task of all socialist
parties is to intensify agitation among the masses, unmask the diplomats of all
countries at their tricks and bring out all the facts for the people to
see—the facts revealing the infamous role ofall the allied
powerswithout exception—both as direct performers of the functions
of the gendarme, and as his abettors, friends and financiers.

Anextremely onerous, hut at the same time extremely noble and momentous task
falls now to the Russian Social Democratic deputies in the Duma, where a
statement by Izvolsky and a question by the Cadets and Octobrists are
expected. The Social-Democratic deputies are members of a body that is a screen
for the policy of the chief reactionary power, the chief plotter of
counter-revolution, and they must find in themselves the courage and abilityto tell thewhole truth. At a time like this, the Social-Democratic deputies in the
Black-Hundred Duma are people to whom much is given and of whom much is
required. For apart from them there isno onein the Duma to voice the
protest against tsarism from positionsotherthan those of theCadetsand Octobrists. And a Cadet “protest”, at such times
and in the present circumstances, is worse than no protest at all since it can
be made onlyfrom amidst the self samecapitalist wolf-pack, and on
behalf of the selfsame wolfish policy.

OurDuma group and all our other Party organisations should therefore set to
work at once. Agitation among the masses is now a hundredfold more important
than in ordinary times. Three propositions should take first place in all our
Party agitation. First, in contrast to the whole of the reactionary and
liberal press—from the Black Hundreds to the Cadets—Social-Democrats
should expose the diplomatic game of conferences, agreement of the powers,
alliances with Britain against Austria, or with Austria against Germany, or any
other. Our job is to reveal thefactthat there exists a reactionary
conspiracy of the powers, a conspiracy which the governments are doing
everything they possibly can to conceal behind the farce of public
negotiations. Our policy should be to denounce this diplomatic farce, bring the
truth to the people, expose international anti-proletarian reaction! Secondly,
we should reveal the real, as distinct from the asserted, results of this
conspiracy, namely, the blow to the Turkish revolution, Russia’s
assistance in strangling the Persian revolution, interference in the affairs of
other nations, and violation of that fundamental democratic principle, the
right of nations to self-determination. That right is championed by our
programme and the programmes of all the Social-Democratic parties of the
world. And there can be nothing more reactionary than the solicitude of the
Austrians on the one hand, and the Russian Black Hundreds on the other, for
their “Slav brothers”. This “solicitude” is being used
to screen the vile intrigues that have long won Russia notoriety in the
Balkans. This “solicitude” always boils down to encroachments ongenuinedemocracy in one Balkan country or another. There is only one
sincere way for the powers to show “solicitude” for the Balkan nations, and that, is to leave them alone, stop harassingthem by foreign interference, stop putting spokes in the wheel of the Turkish
revolution. But, of course, the working class cannot expect that kind of policy
from the bourgeoisie.

Allthe bourgeois parties, including the most liberal and
“democratic” in name, our Cadets included, support capitalist
foreign policy. That is the third thing which the Social- Democrats must with
special vigour bring to the knowledge of the people. For, to all intents and
purposes, the liberals and Cadets stand for the present rivalry between the capitalist nations, differing with the Black Hundreds only as to the forms this
should take, and insisting only on inter national agreements different from
those upon which the government now relies. And this liberal struggle against
one variety of bourgeois foreign policy in favour of another variety of that
same policy, these liberal reproaches levelled at the government for lagging
behind other countries (in rapine and intervention!) have the most corrupting
effect on the masses. Down with all colonial policy, down with the whole policy
of intervention and capitalist struggle for the conquest of foreign lands and
foreign populations, for new privileges, new markets, control of the Straits,
etc.! Social-Democrats do not subscribe to the stupid philistine utopia of
“peaceful and just” capitalist progress. Their struggle is against
the whole of capitalist society as such, in the knowledge that there is no
other champion of peace and liberty in the world than the international
revolutionary proletariat.

P.S. After this article had been sent to the press, the papers published a
dispatch of theSt. Petersburg Telegraph Agencydenying the report
about Russian troops having crossed the Persian border. The dispatch was
published in theFrankfurter Zeitungof October 24, in the second
morning edition. Thethirdedition carried a report from Constantinople dated October 24, 10.50p.m., stating that on the evening of the
24th news of the Russian troops crossing the Persian border had reached
Constantinople. The foreign press,with the exception of the socialist
papers, is so far silent on the Russian invasion of Persia.

Tosum up: we are not yet in a position to learn the whole truth. At any rate,
the “denials” emanating from the tsaristgovernment anti theSt. Petersburg Telegraph Agencyarc not, of
course, to be trusted. That Russia, with the knowledge of the powers, is
fighting the Persian revolution with every means at her command, from
intrigue to the sending of troops, is a fact. That her policy is to occupy
Azerbaijan, is likewise beyond doubt. And if the troops have not yet
crossed the border, then very probably all the preparations for them to do
so have already been made. There is no smoke without fire.

[1]TheBerlin Treaty—an agreement endorsed on July 13, 1878, by
the Congress of representatives of the governments of Russia Britain,
Austro-Hungary, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey after the Russo-Turkish
War of 1877-78.

[2]NovoyeVremya(New Times)—a daily newspaper
published in St. Petersburg from 1868 to October 1917. At first moderately
liberal, it became in 1876 the mouthpiece of reactionary circles among the
aristocracy and bureaucracy. It was opposed to the bourgeois-liberal as
well as the revolutionary movement. From 1905 onwards it was an organ of
the Black Hundreds. Lenin called it a specimen of the venal press.

[3]Pugachov,Yemelyan—leader of the peasant war in Russia in
1773-75.